> We can all agree that IF the market cap gets this large, it will mean Bitcoin will have had a huge positive impact on society.
What, why?! Even if that were the case, it doesn't follow that the good it does outweighs using 1% of all energy.
What, why?! Even if that were the case, it doesn't follow that the good it does outweighs using 1% of all energy.
Firstly, I think you are underestimating the societal impact that would have led a cryptocurrency to be worth $1 trillion. It would mean it has succeeded on a massive scale: foreign trade made more fluid thanks to Bitcoin's disregard of political borders, hundreds of millions of people using it to escape inflation/financial restrictions/etc (vs. today's few million users), millions of merchants accepting it (vs. today's 130 000 merchants). All Bitcoin would have to accomplish to justify using 0.X% of the world's energy is to increase the world GDP by 0.X%.
Secondly, 0.74% is an upper bound. It assumes power costs of $0.01 per kWh (read section 2 at http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=82) when actually the average power cost worldwide is 10x higher ($0.10/kWh). Maybe it will be 0.3% of the total energy. Maybe 0.1%. How low is low enough that you would consider it worthwhile?
It is crazy to have a currency that requires this dumb make-work of hashing which results in CO2 emissions. We live in a world of dangerous climate change and Bitcoin users want us to expel CO2 into the atmosphere with every currency transaction. That is dumb and not sustainable.
BitFury: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151211005837/en/Bit...
KnC: http://thenodepole.com/2015/06/04/kncminer-to-build-new-20mw...
Therefore your worry about CO₂ emissions is misplaced.
Well that's just unreasonable. Do you have any earthly idea how much CO2 the current banking system expends?